FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 17200/11 S.B . against Finland lodged on 16 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms S.B., is a Moroccan national who was born in 1986. She is represented before the Court by Ms Anna Virmakoski , a lawyer practising in Turku.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant arrived in Finland on 18 July 2007 with a visa granted by the Finnish consulate in Rabat.

On 10 September 2007 the applicant married an Algerian man in Finland and she was granted a residence permit on the basis of family ties until 19 January 2010. She divorced on 7 September 2009.

On 21 December 2009 the applicant sought asylum as well as the prolongation of her residence permit. She stated that her adoptive mother lived in Finland and that they were very close.

On 18 March 2010 the Finnish Immigration Service ( Maahanmuuttovirasto , Migrationsverket ) rejected her asylum application and decided to order her removal to Morocco. In its reasons the Service stated that the applicant ’ s story contained conflicting information concerning, inter alia , with whom she had lived in Morocco. Her story was thus not fully credible. The threats imposed by private parties were not as such sufficient grounds to grant asylum. Since 2004 Moroccan women no longer needed permission from their father to marry and divorces had become more common in Morocco. The police had a special unit for investigating domestic violence and a shelter system was in place for women. It was nowadays possible for a woman to live alone in Morocco. The applicant had not shown any reason why she could not obtain protection from the Moroccan authorities if needed. Even though the applicant had taken part in student protests, she had not been arrested and her name was not known to the Moroccan authorities. It was not credible that she would be persecuted in Morocco for political reasons. Nor was it credible that she would be persecuted due to the fact that she was married to an Algerian man. As to the residence permit, the Service noted that the applicant ’ s adoption had not been registered in Finland. In any event, the applicant was an adult and could not be considered a family member of her adoptive mother.

The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court ( hallinto-oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that the Immigration Service ’ s decision be quashed.

On 3 November 2010 a District Court ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) confirmed the applicant ’ s adoption in Finland. It found that the applicant ’ s aunt had taken care of her since she was 4 years old. Even when the aunt moved to Finland in 1997, she had been in close contact with the applicant. In 2000 the adoption had been registered in Morocco. The applicant ’ s adoption could be confirmed in Finland only when she became adult.

On 7 January 2011 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on the same grounds as the Immigration Service. This decision was served to the applicant on 27 January 2011.

By letter dated 17 February 2011 the applicant appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) requesting a stay on expulsion, which was not granted.

On 22 February 2011 the applicant was detained with a view to preparing her removal.

On 24 February 2011 a District Court found, when deciding on the applicant ’ s detention, that the applicant ’ s state of health prevented her removal at that time but that the removal could be enforced when her condition allowed it. She was released from detention on the same date.

On 28 February 2011 the applicant was admitted to a closed ward of a mental hospital due to psychotic depression. She was admitted at least until 3 March 2011.

On 11 March 2011 the police decided to detain the applicant again. However, this was not possible as the applicant was still apparently hospitalised .

On 13 March 2011 the applicant was admitted to a mental hospital in Helsinki. She was diagnosed as severely depressed, psychotic and suicidal. She was apparently hospitalised until 27 May 2011.

In April 2012 the Government informed the Court about the applicant ’ s situation. The applicant ’ s health had improved during the autumn and winter of 2011 but had deteriorated again in February 2012, when the police had asked for a new psychiatric evaluation. Since then the applicant had not been able to eat and had been suffering from severe sleeping problems. Her eating problems and suicidal tendencies were likely to lead again to hospitalisation .

On 11 June 2013 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she would be in danger if removed to Morocco. Her father has threatened to kill her because she married an Algerian man in Finland. He does not accept her divorce either. This issue is a family matter and the Moroccan authorities will not intervene in such matters. Moreover, the applicant is in bad physical as well as mental health. She was hospitalised in a psychiatric clinic on 28 February 2011 and again on 12 March 2011. She is suffer ing from severe malnutrition, severe depression and is suicidal.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

In the light of the applicant ’ s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would her removal from Finland be in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, given her current state of health?